| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hash index creation warning |
| Date: | 2014-10-18 14:36:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20141018143624.GD16974@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 02:36:55PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:56:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > > The question is whether we explain the implications of not being WAL-logged
> > > in an error message or simply state the fact and let the documentation
> > > explain the hazards - basically just output:
> > > "hash indexes are not WAL-logged and their use is discouraged"
> >
> > +1. The warning message is not the place to be trying to explain all the
> > details.
>
> OK, updated patch attached.
Patch applied.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2014-10-18 14:38:37 | Re: get_actual_variable_range vs idx_scan/idx_tup_fetch |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-10-18 14:33:28 | Re: get_actual_variable_range vs idx_scan/idx_tup_fetch |